If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

As far as deniers go ... while we know Columbus was right about the world being round ... he was a denier of the "proven science" of the day that the world was flat. The connotation of denier being positive or negative depends on who's using the term. Lots of deniers, historically, went against the prevailing tide, but the deniers turned out to be right. The left loves to talk about "code words. In this case, when it comes to "deniers of climate change", that might be considered their "code" for stupid.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

A much cooler than expected summer has caused more than a million square miles of ocean to be covered in ice this year - a 60% increase from August, 2012.

Interstingly, the IPCC will hold a crisis meeting later this month in advance of the release of its latest report on climate change. Part of the problem is that the report doesn't appear to be able to explain the pause in warming, nor why temperatures aren't rising as fast as the models predicted.

Quoting from the Daily Mail:

The pause - which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre - is important, because the models' predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world's economies divert billions of pounds into 'green' measures to counter climate change.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century - a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The article also includes a satellite photo of the Arctic icepack from 2012 adjacent to one from 2013.

Maybe we should be burning a bit more fossil fuel to warm things up a bit?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Global cooling is caused by Global warming. We must by Carbon offsets to pay for our sins. There have been no hurricanes this year in along the Atlantic coast. Caused by climate change... It's our fault.

Some of you just continue to believe that there was no climate shift before Al Gore. The concern was first postulated by Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish Nobel laurate, in 1896. Arrhenius was a heavy hitter. He was a physicist, chemist and climate scientist. He didn't milk the U.S. government for research grants.

I thought this discussion would center on good science, but your recent posts make it clear that you have little interest in the science and more in red herrings.

In your most recent post you cite one year of data (i.e. sample size of one) and suggest it disproves global warming. This is not good science; it is classic cherry picking and pulling data out of context. You are correct that the extent of ice coverage in August ice greater than 2012 but you failed to mention the fact that 2012 was the lowest extent ever recorded and failed to mention that the arctic ice extent is 1.03 million square kilometers (398,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for August. The long term trend fully supports the idea that the earth is warming. What are your thoughts on this trend?

Also, have you noticed that many of your posts and those from a couple others often pull at the threads of “uncertainty” in the science and point to the great complexity of the earth’s climate system to suggest that climate scientists cannot fully understand or make good predictions related to climate (I could list them if you want). At the same time, you and others post singular bits of information to try and disprove climate change. This truly is a case where you are arguing on one hand that there is too much uncertainty and complexity in the science to say we are in climate change and then, on the other hand, saying that any data that does not fit into a simple linear relationship (e.g. sea ice extent, global temperature, CO2 and temperature) proves the theory wrong. Do you see the inconsistency, Gerry?

In your previous post you insinuated that my use of the term “denier” was an indirect attempt to call people with your point of view "stupid". On this, I suggest you look at some of Mr. Singer’s writing on this topic (you have cited a couple of his articles, is he a lib using “code words” too?). The terms “denier” and “skeptic” are commonly used in this debate and I will continue to use them. Have you noticed that throughout this thread, people with my point of view have been called “confused”, “stupid”, “idiotic”, “dumb”, “moronic”, “looney”, “foolish”, “poopy”, “sheep”, “nuts”, and “believer” on multiple occasions?. Despite this, one person on your side of the argument even had the gall to state in a post that the folks on my side of the argument must resort to name calling since the facts were not on our side (you must find this hilarious). I can assure you, there is no implicit judgment on a person’s intelligence when I use of this word. It is disappointing that you would get defensive and play the victim card here.

Yes, it’s all about Al Gore. Another sign of desperation used many times in this thread to get a rise out of the choir.

Henry and Others "cool aid" drinkers Their is as much evidence questioning the validity of the research of the so called data on climate change and global warming as there is for it. A small sample of this noted below....Source:"Global Warming Basics." By James D. Agresti and SchuylerDugle. Just Facts, August 15, 2011. Revised 7/20/12. http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.basics.asp

As of August 2011, 9,029 Ph.D.scientists including 3,805 atmospheric, earth, or environmental scientists havesigned a petition stating:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.[204][205][206]

When talking about Global Warming:According to satellite data correlated and adjusted by theNational Space Science and Technology Center, the average temperature of theEarth's lower atmosphere increased by 0.52ºF (0.29ºC) between the 1980s and2000s, mostly during 1998-2010:*Sources ofuncertainty in satellite-derived temperatures involve variations in satelliteorbits, variations in measuring instruments, and variations in the calculationsused to translate raw data into temperatures.[34][35]

Some of you just continue to believe that there was no climate shift before Al Gore. The concern was first postulated by Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish Nobel laurate, in 1896. Arrhenius was a heavy hitter. He was a physicist, chemist and climate scientist. He didn't milk the U.S. government for research grants.

Just the exact opposite Sarge. It is forever shifting. When I was in high school (or maybe Junior high) the media was warning about an impending ice age... That was quickly forgotten when the global warming hoax started. Now here we are talking about a "period of cooling". This is only unusual to libs who think things should stay the same all the time for everyone... Everywhere!

I've said this before... Our lifetime (or even the last 200 years) is a relative blip on the screen of time in regards to earth and its atmosphere. We didn't create it, we can't control it, and I don't believe we can destroy it.

Everyone and I mean everyone who puts out all these reports, studies, movies, documentaries etc... Has an agenda. In my opinion, it's all about money to most of them. Or the re-distribution of it.

The weather pattern is shifting all right... And so are the terms that the global warming... Er... Cooling...er...climate change folks use when referring to it.

Henry and Others "cool aid" drinkers Their is as much evidence questioning the validity of the research of the so called data on climate change and global warming as there is for it. A small sample of this noted below....Source:"Global Warming Basics." By James D. Agresti and SchuylerDugle. Just Facts, August 15, 2011. Revised 7/20/12. http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.basics.asp

As of August 2011, 9,029 Ph.D.scientists including 3,805 atmospheric, earth, or environmental scientists havesigned a petition stating:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.[204][205][206]

When talking about Global Warming:According to satellite data correlated and adjusted by theNational Space Science and Technology Center, the average temperature of theEarth's lower atmosphere increased by 0.52ºF (0.29ºC) between the 1980s and2000s, mostly during 1998-2010:*Sources ofuncertainty in satellite-derived temperatures involve variations in satelliteorbits, variations in measuring instruments, and variations in the calculationsused to translate raw data into temperatures.[34][35]

* A 2006 paper in the Journal ofGeophysical Research that calculates uncertainties in surface temperaturedata states that a

Definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns.[52]

This is a duplicate of your post 95 on page 10. You even cited the thoroughly discredited "survey" of scientists again. You know, the one where I pointed out that you and I could have signed it and that Perry Mason, Michael J. Fox and one of the spice girls signed.

I directly responded to your misinformation way back in post 108. It still stands. If you want to argue science, find an author who is a scientist not a right wing propagandist.

In your previous post you insinuated that my use of the term “denier” was an indirect attempt to call people with your point of view "stupid".

I think the article in question was talking about the fact that the word "denier" was used by the climate change proponents was an attempt to equate the non-proponents as "stupid" ... not the other way around.

I'm not convinced that what we know so far is "settled science".

The ice pack notation, is a piece of data amidst the recent history of a cooling trend. Both the cooling trend and the ice pack growth have been unanticipated according to the theories of warming that have been prominent. Right now it would appear that even proponents of the warming theory are puzzled by these pieces of data.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.